Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rclc20

Download by: [179.178.31.217] Date: 25 October 2016, At: 05:43

Canadian Journal of Latin American and CaribbeanStudies / Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes

ISSN: 0826-3663 (Print) 2333-1461 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclc20

Education for Peace in the Mexican context

Narcedalia Lozano Garza

To cite this article: Narcedalia Lozano Garza (2015) Education for Peace in the Mexicancontext, Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne desétudes latino-américaines et caraïbes, 40:2, 200-221

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08263663.2015.1044720

Published online: 01 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 148

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Education for Peace in the Mexican context

Narcedalia Lozano Garza*

McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canadaand La Paz comienza con los Niños, A.C./Peace begins with Children Foundation, México

(Received 1 April 2014; accepted 21 December 2014)

This paper presents a case study of a peace-based education program piloted inMexico. An analysis of the interactions among the micro, meso, and macro levelssheds light on how the benefits, challenges, and impact of synergic action contributetowards building a culture of peace. The paper concludes that the best strategy forcrime prevention is education for peace. This requires multi-stakeholder collaborationto create transcendental solutions that go to the roots of the problem of violence inMexico rather than simply fighting its symptoms.

Cet article rend compte d’un programme d’éducation issu du mouvement pacifiste,dont le projet-pilote est présentement mené au Mexique. Il s’agit de démontrer,à travers une analyse des interactions à diverses échelles (micro, méso et macro), lesbénéfices, enjeux et impacts de l’action synergique sur la construction d’une culturepacifiste. L’article conclut que la meilleure stratégie de prévention anticriminelle estl’éducation pour la paix. Ceci requiert une collaboration entre les divers partisintéressés afin de créer des solutions transcendantes qui attaquent à la source leproblème de la violence au Mexique plutôt que de simplement en combattre lessymptômes.

Keywords: Education for Peace; Mexico; citizenship; multi-stakeholder collaboration;violence prevention

Introduction

The country of Mexico is afflicted by a high degree of violence. In the past 10 years, morethan 83,541 people have been killed due to violence stemming from the trafficking andtrade of narcotics. Widespread poverty and state corruption have enabled the proliferationof drug-related gangs, drawing whole communities and particularly young people into thevolatile and exceedingly violent world of organized crime. Schoolyards have becomerecruiting grounds for gangs and community streets front lines for violence. Neitherfamilies nor schools nor state institutions have yet succeeded in quelling this tide ofintrastate violence.

Due in part to the genocidal wars of the 1990s, the international community hasengaged in a deeper exploration of how “cultures of violence” can be transformed into“cultures of peace”. In this regard, it has been widely assumed that peace education is oneof the most important tools to build a culture of peace. In theory, through empoweringchildren and young people with the knowledge, values, attitudes, and skills of peace, aculture of peace can take root and gradually extend through ripple effects beyond theclassroom to families and the wider community. To the extent that peace educationengages a range of actors, such as grassroots civil society organizations (CSOs),

*Email: narcedalia.lozano@gmail.com

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 2015Vol. 40, No. 2, 200–221, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08263663.2015.1044720

© 2015 CALACS

international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), non-governmental organizations(NGOs), the media, governmental institutions, the private sector, religious institutions,international organizations (IOs), and the state at large, positive effects in these social andpolitical domains are also anticipated (Spaulding 1998; Orjuela 2003; Cabezudo andHaavelsrud 2007; Galtung 2007; Danesh 2007; Ross 2010).

Despite these assumptions, there is little empirical research on the actual impacts ofpeace education at the school and societal levels. This is particularly true in Mexico, whereno studies of this type have been conducted. Within the peace education literature, manystudies bring important insight to the study of peace education. However, most of themfocus primarily on outcomes in the educational community by tracking attitudinal andbehavioral changes among participating children and young people (Krosnick and Petty1995; Salomon 2004; Johnson and Johnson 2010; Bar-On 2010; McCully 2010). They havenot examined the structural correspondence among schools and other actors outside theschool, leaving an important empirical knowledge gap about how peace education isconceived and transferred from major political institutions towards schools. Only a fewstudies have reported the impacts of peace education on societal structures and interinstitu-tional relationships (Paolini et al. 2004; Danesh 2010; Clarke-Habibi 2005; Staub, Pearlmall,and Bilali 2010). Therefore, what remains unclear is how the role of institutions, actors’interests, politics, and policies at the macro level influence peace education from the top-down approach and vice-versa. Ross (2010, 197) argues that, beyond changes in theattitudes of program recipients, “the many changes at the collective, institutional levelmay matter far more in the long run”, as “peace education programs do not operate in avacuum” (Salomon and Cairns 2010a).

This study aims to contribute to this gap in peace research literature and to transformthe policy and practice of peace education by examining its social construction and bymaking an in- depth case study of a peace education initiative in Mexico. The studyexplores two broad questions. First, how do school-based peace education programs indiverse conflict-affected contexts (micro level) involve the wider society (meso and macrolevels)? Second, how do institutions at the state, federal, and international levels influencepeace education at the micro level? From an examination of this dialogue between themicro, the meso, and the macro, the study aims to understand the benefits, challenges, andimpacts of multi-stakeholder peace education collaboration within Mexican communities.

The paper presents the case study and examines the preliminary findings from thequalitative evaluation of a new peace education program – Education for Peace (EFP) –which has been implemented in 10 schools in the Mexican state of Nuevo León sinceMarch 2012. The program so far involves 4,154 students, 417 teachers, and more than8,000 parents. The data were gathered during the period of May 2013 to April 2014 andconsists of 150 questionnaires and 17 in-depth interviews with teachers, parents, membersof CSOs, NGOs, government leaders participating in this pre-pilot program, and othersplanning to launch the program in other Mexican states. Drawing on their reported views,the analysis of the strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats (SWOT) to theprogram are presented. This methodology inquires on those four specific areas andcontributes to strategic planning. This is then examined within the wider cultural, institu-tional, and political dynamics beyond the school which have an influence on the pro-gram’s implementation and in the following phases.

This ongoing study is timely and relevant given the prevalence of intrastate violenceglobally, along with the acute challenges to human security in Mexico with which thefederal and state governments and the international community are currently struggling.The study aims to inform national and international decision makers about how best to

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 201

invest in EFP in Mexico, and about the strategic value of promoting multi-stakeholdercollaboration at the state and federal levels, as a key mechanism for building a culture ofpeace in this violence-afflicted society.

Part I of this article lays out the conceptual basis of the study, highlights the gap in theliterature on peace education, and presents the EFP program. Part II focuses on thechallenging Mexican scenario which has prompted a declared need for peace education.Part III presents the preliminary results of the EFP pre-pilot program in Nuevo León,Mexico. Part IV discusses the implications of this experiment to trigger multi-stakeholdercollaboration to build a culture of peace.

Part 1: peace education in theory and research

Peace education as a field began gathering momentum after the World War I. Diverseintellectuals and activists such as Montessori, Freinet, Roselló, and Raynaud de la Ferrièreattributed to education the responsibility of cultivating peace (Jarés 1999). After WorldWar II this notion was enshrined in the constitution of the United Nations Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO 1945). The 1945 declaration statement“Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peacemust be constructed” (UNESCO 1945, 1) became the mandate for twentieth-centuryengagement with peacebuilding and with peace education. In the 1960s, the concept ofpeace as the absence of war (negative peace) was distinguished by Johan Galtung (1967)from the dynamic processes of creating a culture of peace (positive peace), lending aclearer and more ambitious focus to peacebuilding efforts. Through successive UnitedNations World Congresses and UNESCO “International Decade for a Culture of Peaceand Non-violence for the Children of the World” (2001–2010), education has beenformally recognized as a key tool to the cultivation of peace, gaining increased politicaland financial support from governmental and non-governmental institutions.

Both “peace” and a “culture of peace” are contested terms. They have been used tomean different things in different contexts. For this paper, peace is defined as “apsychological, social, political, ethical and spiritual state with its expression in the areasof the intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, international and global human relation-ships” (Danesh 2006, 55) and as the main expression of a unity-based worldview.“Culture of Peace is a set of values, attitudes, modes of behavior and ways of life thatreject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problemsthrough dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups and nations” (UNResolutions A/RES/52/13: Culture of Peace and A/RES/53/243).

Contrary to a “culture of peace” is a “culture of violence”, in which Galtung (1967)distinguishes direct, structural, and cultural violence. Direct violence occurs when avisible actor commits the act of violence. Structural violence, in which there is not avisible actor committing crime, is observed through the growing poverty, inequality, andunemployment for which the government’s lack of effective policies are principallyresponsible. Cultural violence is observed in the use of political discourse and policy;for example gender inequality, the stigmatization of the poor as criminals, and the lack ofequal access to education (Horowitz 2004–2006).

In order to understand how a culture of peace is being forged in the context of Mexico,it is necessary to examine advancements at the level of awareness, proactive involvement,and commitment of its civil society today and relate this with the advances occurring inthe country’s democratic consolidation. As such, three other concepts are of importance tothis study: civil society, citizenship, and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

202 N. Lozano Garza

Civil society is defined as “the social fabric formed by a multiplicity of self-constituted territorially and functionally based units, excluding families and businessfirms, which peacefully coexist and collectively resist subordination to the state, at thesame time that they demand inclusion into national political structures” (Oxhorn 2011, 9).Civil society is thus the collective expression of active citizenship.

In Sustaining Civil Society. Economic Change, Democracy, and the Social Constructionof Citizenship in Latin America, Oxhorn (2011) distinguishes between three types of citizen-ship: citizenship as co-optation, citizenship as consumption, and citizenship as agency.Citizenship as co-optation refers to a citizenship created in a top-down fashion in which thecommon dynamic is to grant citizenship rights selectively “to co-opt particular actors andcontain popular sectors’ pressure for greater structural change and inclusion” (Oxhorn 2011,30). Citizenship as co-optation has been present for a long time in Mexico (Oxhorn 2011),causing civil society to remain weak and with a low profile, which challenges the prevalenceand professionalization of programs such as EFP. They are at risk of being manipulated toserve state goals, limiting a dialogue with other actors that would promote the socialconstruction and evolution of the program according to the societal needs. Controlled inclu-sion, as assessed by Oxhorn, is a dynamic in which the state decides to give privileges to somewhile leaving others out of the game. Initiatives of a co-opted citizenship tend to disappearafter the government is changed, so they are short-lived attempts to empower citizenship andto have their goals represented on the political agenda.

Oxhorn (2011) also suggests another concept that explains the kind of citizenship thatemerged during the Mexican market liberalization, neo-pluralism, and economic devel-opment period. “Citizenship as consumption” explains a relationship between the stateand civil society in the form of patron and clients, respectively. “Clientelism affects thepotential for civil society to emerge in numerous ways” (Oxhorn 2011, 194). As such,citizenship as consumption is antithetical to education for peace principles. Clientelism,for example, promotes competition rather than collaboration among the leaders of differ-ent organizations in their struggle to gain access to the decision-making process and toresources (Eckstein, in Oxhorn 2011, 194). It also promotes unilateralism and individu-alism over multilateralism and community building. This type of citizenship only nurturesthe growth of structural inequalities, and thus structural violence.

Finally, “citizenship as agency” (Oxhorn 2011) represents the ideal to build a trulydemocratic synergy between the state and the civil society. The effective implementation ofEFP is triggered and facilitated as strong citizenship promotes the building of a culture ofpeace (Danesh and Clarke-Habibi 2007; Cabezudo and Haavelsrud 2007; Galtung 2007; Jarés1999; Morin 1999). Nowadays, a common saying in Mexico is that “peace is everybody’stask”. Therefore, if the state acts in a unilateral top-down fashion, efforts are dispersed, notsocialized, and effectiveness of the initiative might be put in doubt. If civil society is alone inthis journey, it would take more time, massive resources, and a lot of strategic planning toaccomplish its goals without having those represented in the national agenda. “State andsociety synergy requires new institutions that provide the space for an active partnershipbetween civil society actors and the state in pursuit of common goals” (Oxhorn 2011, 238). Inthis scenario, actors have a good degree of autonomy and also are included and supported bythe state. It is in relation to this point that multi-stakeholder collaboration becomes important.

Through this paper, multi-stakeholder collaboration denotes the practice of synergicaction between different actors (within or external to the state) allied in certain ways toaccomplish shared goals. Those actors could range from states, IOs, INGOs, CSOs, mediaagencies, government offices, educational institutions, enterprises, and religious institutions,among others.

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 203

Peace education is a discipline that focuses on teaching students such concepts ashuman rights, freedom, democracy, and environmental protection, as well as informingthem about the negative consequences of conflict and violence. This is currently the mostcommon approach to the inclusion of peace in school curricula. There is a multitude ofapproaches and focal terms according to the socio-political contexts in which programsare implemented (Salomon and Cairns 2010b). For example, in Rwanda, defined as acontext of ethno-political conflict, peace education is introduced in the form of forgive-ness and reconciliation or restorative justice. Education for mutual understanding is usedin the cases of Israel–Palestine and Northern Ireland, which are categorized as contexts oflong-standing intractable conflicts (Whyte 1991; Salomon 2002).

Most approaches to peace education focus on the classroom dynamics without elaboratingmuch on the dynamics outside of the school. Indeed, Marc Howard Ross (2010, 184) hasargued that they fail to give an adequate account of the role that institutions and practices canplay in the achievement and maintenance of peace. Schimmel (2009) suggests an affectivepeace education model rather than a cognitive one, and identifies the need to develop acomprehensive social and political approach that attains a “ripple effect” or “transference” ofpeace education beyond the schools and towards society as a whole.

LyndsayMcLean (2011) studied the case of Rwanda and addressed the structural violencebehind the emergence of conflict and genocide in 1994, arguing that this type of violencecontinues. She calls on the government and international development partners of Rwanda toassess the impact of actual educational policy and to provide substantive alternatives so thatpost-genocide education in Rwanda can contribute more effectively to peacebuilding andreconciliation.Macro problems are addressed in this literature, but with little assessment of theinteractions between the macro and the micro actors.

In the case of Mexico, peace education to date has taken the form of human rightseducation, conflict resolution education, and civic and moral values education. These, how-ever, have so far proven unable to address the deeper roots of Mexico’s entrenched culture ofviolence or identify a suitable and sustainable long-term solution. I argue that the case ofMexico is unique because its violence is predominantly related to the illegal market of drugsand gang activities rather than an ethno-political, territorial, or religious conflict. As such, ithas not been easy to find an education for peace model that is tailored to this type of conflictand capable of addressing its particular dynamics and deeper causes.

Education for Peace

EFP is an innovative and integrative “whole school” program that creates violence-free andpeaceful school environments conducive to meeting the emotional, social, and intellectualneeds of diverse educational communities. The program focuses on engaging and helpingstudents, teachers, staff, and parents/guardians to become peacemakers by developing inner,interpersonal, and intergroup peace. This goal is accomplished by emphasizing the acquisitionof unity-based worldviews founded on universal principles of peace, which form the frame-work for teaching all subjects of study and are the basis for transforming the micro- andmacro-level relations (Danesh 2006). A peace-oriented worldview includes the “recognitionthat humanity is one”, “that the oneness of humanity is expressed in diversity”, “that thefundamental challenge before humanity is to maintain its oneness while celebrating andfostering its diversity and the recognition that this task cannot be accomplished throughviolence, but rather through open, creative, peaceful, just, and unifying processes of decision-making and problem-solving” (Danesh and Clarke-Habibi 2007, 306).

204 N. Lozano Garza

A survival-based worldview is developed under conditions of poverty, injustice, anarchy,physical threat, violence, and war. In these circumstances, authoritarian and dictatorialpractices are common, and in this context it is not possible to create peace (Firer 2002;Duffy 2000; Danesh 2002). Identity-based worldviews are common when a society embarkson economic progress, and multi-party democratic practices in the framework of adversarialpower structures, extreme competition, and material consumption in the context of competi-tive individual and group identity formation. The survival of the fittest is the prevailing frameof reference in an identity-based worldview, which is not conducive to peace building.

It is in the context of a unity-based worldview that diversity is celebrated through unity-consciousness with the ultimate objective to create a civilization of peace. Cooperative powerstructure in the context of unity in diversity creates the necessary conditions for legitimate powerexercise and facilitates empowerment; both necessary for survival and identity formation(Danesh 2006; Galtung 1978). Nowadays inMexico, the three worldviews overlap and coexist;they do not necessarily reflect the level of socioeconomic development of people or institutions,but they reflect the level of advancement in attaining another level of consciousness throughcritical thinking and more transcendental interests that mold their policies and practices.

The EFP program was chosen among many others for its principles, methodologies,universality, and adaptability, as well as for the quality of its extensive, research-basedcurriculum, the availability of the EFP faculty members, and its results in the case ofBosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and other countries.

Part 2: conflict and violence in the Mexican context

This section analyses the Mexican context at the macro, meso, and micro levels. By microwe refer to individual level; it could also denote the classroom and educational commu-nity (school). The meso level refers to families and inter-institutional-level relationships,for example among schools. The macro level is all sorts of organizations different fromthe school, for example grassroot civil society organizations (GCSOs), NGOs, IOs,government, media, universities, and intrastate relationships, among others.

The macro and meso levels

Political scientists have labeled Mexico as a democratic country since the year 2000 (Schedler2000), as it runs free and fair elections and there are alternating parties in power. Nevertheless, itis necessary that democracy can be practiced not only in the political realm but also in the socialand economic arenas in which democracy has not been experienced for the majorities.“Democracy restricted to the political realm has historically coexisted with exploitation andoppression at the workplace, within schools, within bureaucracies, and within families”(Przeworski 1986, 63). “Freedom from physical violence is as essential a value as freedomfrom hunger, but unfortunately authoritarian regimes often produce a counter-reaction or theromanticization of a limited model of democracy” (Przeworski 1986, 63). Przeworski (1995,35) has also stated that “the exercise of citizenship is feasible only for those individuals whoenjoy some modicum of material security, education and access to information”.

Mexico is also one of the most unequal countries in the world, measured by the GiniCoefficient (UNDP 2013). Income inequality among working-aged people in Mexico is thesecond highest in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), afterChile. “The average income of the top 10% of Mexicans in 2008 was 228,900 MXN, 26 timeshigher than that of the bottom 10%,who had an average income of 8,700MXN. The ratio is 9 to

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 205

1 in a typical OECD country” (OECD 2011). In this scenario, the emergence of an active civilsociety is restrained.

In Mexico, the role of the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación (SNTE,National Union of Education Workers), the largest in Latin America with 1 million members,has been considered instrumental in reproducing an authoritarian system of social exclusionand inequity. The Secretary of Education in Mexico and the SNTE had been accused ofmaintaining the social hierarchy, inequality, and a system loaded with corruption, nepotism,and absence of will to change and improve the educational quality of Mexican children andyouth. The low-quality education is due to the structure that sustains the power for SNTE toobtain corporative benefits without caring for the quality of the offered services.1 Thus, asocial order in which economic inequality and poverty is reproduced takes a heavy toll onsocial development in the Mexican context (United Nations Development Program 2010).

Nevertheless, citizenship as agency is certainly increasing as accountability and respon-siveness are part of everyday lexicon. Diverse institutions emerged and are led by citizensinquiring about the politicians’ practices and outcomes. Institutions such as ObservatorioCiudadano (Citizen Observatory), Congreso Nacional Ciudadano (National CitizenCongress), and programs such as “evaluate your politician” are changing the mentality ofMexican citizens from labeling themselves as servants or clients of the politicians to becomingtheir patrons, capable of making politicians accountable. Citizenship as agency is character-ized by synergy between the civil society and the state to attain shared goals. This type ofcitizenship is needed to face the actual challenges of replacing a culture of violence with aculture of peace that the government alone is not able to do.

To forge a culture of peace it is necessary to understand that “Violence begetsviolence: children who witness abuses have a higher tendency to perpetrate violencelater in life”2 (Danesh and Clarke-Habibi 2007; United Nations Human DevelopmentReport 2011). Besides the crimes usually linked to a context of poverty and inequality,domestic violence has also increased: in the state of Nuevo León alone, a new record ofdomestic violence was set in June 2014, with an average of two accusations presentedevery hour for this crime, totaling 1,478 cases during that month. It is expected that if thistendency continues, it will surpass the number of accusations for domestic violence of2013 that totaled 11,761 (García 2014).

Deeply related to domestic violence, in a bigger context, Mexico experiences anincreasing spiral of violence in the form of kidnappings, grenade attacks, extortions,and road blockades, as well as children and youth recruitment by different Drug TradeOrganizations (DTOs).3 This has resulted in a great number of killings in recent years, in acontext of the “War against the Narco”, launched by former President of Mexico FelipeCalderon Hinojosa, who militarized many states of Mexico, including Nuevo León. Whilescholars may rightfully argue that this approach often works, in this case violence grew(Huerta 2012; Mercille 2011). Before the new administration, the mainstream politicaldiscourse in Mexico tended to privilege the use of violent means over peaceful ones tocontrol and reduce the incidence of violence, without acknowledging the unintendedconsequences of this approach. In general, Mexican authorities have failed to plan waysto build peace by peaceful means.

Today, few politicians are able to foresee alternatives to stop and transform the presentsituation of violence. The President of Mexico launched the National Program for theSocial Prevention of Violence and Delinquency, calling for co-responsibility of thegovernment and the civil society. “The peace that our society deserves, I am convincedit is possible to attain it [. . .] I call all Mexicans to participate in their communities

206 N. Lozano Garza

working hand in hand with the government to build a peaceful Mexico together” (MediosMexico 2013). Nevertheless, the militarization of many Mexican states continues, alongwith a lack of an effective response to reduce structural violence.

Civil society organizations are instrumental to ensure the respect of the rule of law andcontribute to the construction of a truly democratic public life. They also promote synergyamong them, as well as with the government, and form networks capable of strengtheningthe social tissue and increase mutual respect (Olvera 2004). It is precisely in two grass-roots CSOs that the initiative to introduce EFP was first conceived. They later found echoin many other institutions, such as the TEC de Monterrey, the private sector, the NuevoLeón Secretary of Education, Mexico state government and the Mexican Commission forCooperation with UNESCO, Jalisco Secretary of Education, and the NationalCommission for a Culture of Peace, gathering 50 peace-oriented organizations.

The micro level

Generally, schools have been considered by many authors as an instrument for reprodu-cing and reinforcing violent economic and social structures by promoting individualism,competitiveness, mediocrity, passivity, and dependency (Galtung 1975; Jarés 1999;Haavelsrud 1976b; Russell 1988). These and other authors have pointed to the latentaggressiveness structured into the formal school system. While promoting discipline andcoercion, achievement is usually based on meritocracy and competition. There is a scholarhierarchy constituted by inspectors, directors, deans, sub-directors, presidents, vice-pre-sidents, and professors divided in levels according to their knowledge and power. Studentsare also divided according to their economic and intellectual capacity (Galtung 1974).Communication is also hierarchical. The formal education socialization process is typi-cally anti-dialogical in character as it does not promote dialogue but usually suggests thatstudents follow the rules without questioning them. The process promotes cultural andanthropological ethnocentrism, the practice of bullying, as well as a fragmentation ofknowledge (Danesh 2006; Galtung 1975; Haavelsrud 1976a). Schools are in part thereproduction and in part the reinforcement of the economic and social structures in general(Galtung 1975). The budget is often wrongly used, as often funds are labeled forinfrastructure when certain schools need it to hire personnel; teacher preparation andtraining is deficient; and many teachers generate a conflictual environment in the class-room by promoting discrimination, memorization, obedience, and authoritarianism, caus-ing student desertion.4

Approximately 87% of Mexican students attend public schools. Primary education iswhere the majority of students are concentrated, with 15 million compared to 4 million inkindergarten and 5.8 million in secondary school. Upper secondary and high schooltogether account for 6 million students (Santibañez, Vernez, and Razquin 2005). Eventhough decentralization is attempted, it is mostly effective at the administrative level.Teachers often lack the autonomy to use their creativity and knowledge to proposesolutions according to the most urgent needs. There is a high level of rigidity in thecurriculum, including the choice of books, which is determined centrally.

In May 2014, the OECD reported research showing that, among their members, Mexicooccupied first place for violence among basic education students of both public and privateschools.5 Bullying, threats, beating, insults, cyberbullying, and verbal, psychological, andphysical violence have been experienced by 60% of the students in primary and secondarylevels, as stated by the National Commission on Human Rights.6 School violence is mainlyconcentrated in nine Mexican states: Nuevo León (which is the chosen site for this case

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 207

study), Jalisco, Estado de Mexico, Guanajuato, Distrito Federal, Veracruz, Tabasco, Puebla,and Chihuahua. In the same vein, the Secretary of Education reported that 27,000 basiceducation schools are affected by criminal groups while one out of 10 schools experiencevarious forms of violence and the so-called Secure School program provides only super-ficial short-term solutions.7

The Nuevo León context

Nuevo León is a state located in the north-eastern region of Mexico and is known as a“state of progress” and the industrial capital of the country. It is one of the mosteconomically prosperous and advantaged states in the area of education, not only at theprimary and secondary levels but also at higher education level. The state experiences agood amount of autonomy, agency, and freedom towards the state-administered education.The stable economic growth has made this state very attractive for national and interna-tional investment. Nuevo León had distinguished itself as a relative pacific state in thesocial and political realms, but this scenario of relative tranquility has completely changedrecently.

The multiplication and spread of drug cartel activities have been aggravated since2007. Around 3,000 troops were sent by the federal government to Nuevo León, but thegovernment kept them outside urban areas. However, violence increased and, by 2009,both the federal and state governments invested a lot of economic resources and efforts tobuild and operate the so- called centers of integral coordination, control, command,communication, and computer for the enhancement of security and intelligence (C5), aninvestment of around a USD 100 million subsidized at 60% by the federal governmentand at 40% by the state government. More soldiers were sent to initiate what was calledOperation Nuevo León, aimed to control and contend the multiple violent acts reporteddaily.

The year 2010 was one of the most violent years in the history of Nuevo León. Manyinnocent people died during clashes between soldiers and drug traffickers.8 During thistime, many people decided to leave the country to the United States for insecurity reasons.It was not until mid-2012 that a reduction of the 80% of military presence was replaced byFuerza Civil (Civil Force), which is a new civilian police force that has reportedly helpedto reduce the incidence of violence.

Part 3: the Education for Peace experiment in Mexico

The peace education approach ultimately adopted in Mexico is based on a unique model –Education for Peace – initially piloted and developed in the context of Bosnia-Herzegovina since 2000 and continues to this date with excellent results. Althoughviolence in the Bosnian context was ethno-political in character, this model of EFP wasassessed as appropriate to the Mexican context because the EFP curriculum is at onceuniversal and specific: universal in its conceptual foundations and specific in the mannerin which these concepts are applied in each distinctive context. Also:

EFP engages all members of the school community – students, teachers, administrators,support staff, and parents/guardians (to the extent possible) – in the study and practice ofEFP principles in classrooms, school environments, and within the families of the students.As such, EFP helps to create a situation in which every member of the school community isimmersed in an environment of peace. Whenever EFP is introduced to a new school

208 N. Lozano Garza

community, the basic EFP curriculum is adapted to the specific needs and realities of thatcommunity. This task is approached with the full participation and involvement of educatorsfrom the host community.9

The decision to introduce EFP into a few schools in Mexico, as a pre-pilot project, todetermine its suitability to the Mexican context, was made on the basis of these facts. Aswill be seen later in the paper, the pre-pilot project proved to be successful.

The quest for peace by peaceful means

Diverse non-state actors began to strongly use a discourse in which lasting peace must becreated by peaceful means. In October 2011 two CSOs – La Paz Comienza con los NiñosA.C. (Peace begins with Children) and Enlazando Esfuerzos Conjuntos A.C. (LinkingEfforts) – searched for synergy among different actors and, together with the AlfonsoReyes Chapter at TEC de Monterrey and TRANSCEND Mexico, gathered 24 organiza-tions and invited Johan Galtung to convene a meeting. Galtung, widely regarded as thefather of peace studies, founder of TRANSCEND Peace by peaceful means, and mediatorin 80 international conflicts, accepted this invitation and a workshop for 2,200 represen-tatives of Mexican civil society, government, educational institutions, media, and theprivate sector was organized on 24 October 2011. It tackled three essential tasks thatneeded to be promoted in the Mexican context: peace-based education, peace-basedleadership and governance, and peace-based conflict resolution. H.B. Danesh, Presidentof the International Education for Peace Institute (Canada), was invited for consultation tofulfill these tasks.

Training and support of teachers and staff

Following Danesh’s visit in February 2012, the first EFP training workshop was heldin the state of Nuevo León. One hundred and fifty representatives of 10 schools, alongwith other actors from the public and the private spheres including the state’s Secretaryof Education, Secretary of Tourism, and Secretary of Social Development, as well ashigher education institution representatives and NGOs leaders, participated in a two-day intensive training (Figure 1). The Education for Peace Curricular Manual, trans-lated and published in Spanish, was also presented to the TEC de Monterrey highschool professors of diverse states, aiming for gradual implementation. To this day, 17Nuevo León UNESCO Associated Schools have expressed their intention to be trainedin the EFP curriculum in order to implement the program in the following academicyear.

Later, the Federal Secretary of Government sent representatives to evaluate the firstoutcomes of the program in Nuevo León, who were satisfied and expressed theircommitment to study alternatives to support it.

One of the higher education professors who went to the EFP training reflected:

Danesh invited us to reflect about our own worldview. It is necessary to favour coopera-tion and equality: to work for justice; to live in unity. Following the Education for Peaceapproach will be possible to build a sustainable and lasting peace. (Yuri Luis CarlosSánchez Ríos [interview, February 23, 2012]; University of Monterrey professor)

Another professor of a primary school expressed his support for the program, saying:

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 209

In the near future, I wish to belong to the training team representing the Secretary ofEducation and to promote the program both within the educational community and beyond.(Eduardo Valdéz Puente [interview, February 22, 2012]; Professor and Human Developmentand Social Participation leader of the Secretary of Education)

After the training, the leader of the National Commission for a Culture of Peace stated:

The approach of Education for Peace will help us to rebuild from inside out. We reflected onthe importance of the unity principle, which has to be present at all levels: individual, family,schools, society, and governments. The peace we want to build requires social justice, respectfor the human rights and democracy. (Hiram Valdez Chávez [interview, February 22, 2012],Founder of the National Commission for a Culture of Peace)

In May 2013, in an unprecedented effort, Peace begins with Children and LinkingEfforts convened a certification process with the government of Estado de México. In analliance, the Secretary of Education, the Mexican Commission for Cooperation withUNESCO, the UNESCO Education and Community Development World Center, andthe UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network brought 400 representatives from 28states of Mexico to begin the first phase of an EFP certification process. It was conductedby the EFP international staff to implement the program in many schools across thecountry (Figure 2).

Bernando Olvera, Subsecretary of Medium High and High Education of the state ofMexico, exhorted the participants to take the certification “as an opportunity togenerate actions and promote dialogue as a principle to live together in harmony inthe institutions you lead, favoring a culture of peace and sustainable development inthe framework of the principles established by UNESCO: learning to be, to know, todo, and to live together” (Gobierno de México 2013). In the framework of the JaliscoCongress of Values in October 2014, its government and Secretary of Educationinvited EFP staff to introduce the principles of the program to 1,500 professors.After an important visit of Jalisco representatives in November 2014 to a few schoolsof Nuevo León in which the program has been applied, they are considering itsimplementation in many schools of Jalisco.

Figure 1. First generation of 150 professors from 10 schools (five public and five private) trainedon EFP in Nuevo León. February 2012. Monterrey, Nuevo León. Photo: Iliana Ayala.

210 N. Lozano Garza

For the next academic cycle, 2015–2016, the program will enter another phase bytraining a group of trainers that will give subsequent follow up to each of the schools, andcontinue the introduction of the EFP program to other states and schools.

The Education for Peace program

The 10 schools participating in the EFP pre-pilot program agreed that its philosophy,principles, methodology, and practices are “perfectly applicable for the case ofMexico” and expressed their appreciation for the program’s flexibility to adapt totheir most urgent needs. After the training, all participants made a commitment toshare their newly acquired knowledge with all school professors who could not attendthe first EFP training workshop, as only one professor for every 100 students directlyparticipated. It was confirmed that the total of professors from the participating schoolswould be trained by those directly trained. One of the 10 schools applied the programin only three classrooms, but they plan to extend its introduction throughout the entireschool.

We have trained the whole educational community at the beginning of each academic year.There are monthly training sessions on the principles of EFP to parents, and to all theeducational community from the director to the janitors. (Iliana Ayala de Treviño [interview,May 13, 2014]; EFP Coordinator, Nezaldi School)

EFP has worked very well as a stepping stone, as orientation that unifies and nurtures oneself andthe others [. . .] Teachers have assimilated the program very well and with a positive attitude. This

Figure 2. Workshop tables at the introduction of the EFP certification process. May 2013. Toluca,Estado de México. Photo: Narcedalia Lozano.

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 211

has been very important to believe in it, to make it our own, and practice it in their daily lives.(Ursula Werren de Bolaños [interview, May 9, 2014]; Director of FORMUS private school)

The main objective of the EFP program is to create – with the help of teachers,parents/guardians, and students – unique school communities characterized by a culture ofpeace, a culture of healing, and a culture of excellence, and to instill in its participants thewill to become peacemakers by developing inner, interpersonal, and intergroup peace andenable critical thinking and reflection (Danesh and Clarke-Habibi 2007).

In this respect, the following statements provide initial indications of the impact of theEFP program, once it is fully implemented in many more schools.

Since its introduction, we have experienced more participation of parents in school activities.Professors are now open to dialogue among them and towards the children. (Mirthala CenicerosGutierrez [interview, May 6, 2014]; Director of the Emiliano Zapata federal primary school)

After implementing the program, bullying decreased and also the bad behavior of the children.Teachers now are more proactive at thinking on generating alternatives that trigger a betterenvironment. (María Lourdes Valdés Conte [interview, May 12, 2014]; EFP CoordinatorMirasierra private primary school)

Greater commitment for teamwork (professors, administrators, and janitors), a better workingenvironment, and more actions oriented to respect the principles to build a culture of peace.(Iliana Ayala de treviño [interview, May 13, 2014]; EFP Coordinator, Nezaldi private school)

Parents are now more empathetic with professors. (Norma Lilia Garza Montemayor [inter-view, May 7, 2014]; EFP Coordinator, Enedina Garcia public school)

EFP is conceived as a transversal program that transforms the whole academic curricu-lum so that every discipline is connected and taught, privileging a complex understanding ofcertain laws and principles that are applied in all life processes (Figure 3). Laws such as thatof unity, growth, and creativity, among others, are foundational for the program. While itintegrates all members of the school community, usually what children learn at school doesnot always coincide with what they see at their home, in the media, in the parks, and the workplaces, and for that reason it is imperative to integrate the society at large in these efforts.

The most important challenge at applying the program are the parents [. . .] With the aim ofmaking synergy with the school a peace attitude has to be privileged as well as prevent lack ofcongruence [. . .] Family education should synergize with what we do at school. (María LourdesValdés Conte [interview, May 12, 2014]; EFP Coordinator, Mirasierra Private School)

At the public school Clodio Gonzalez Beltran, diverse conferences and seminars on HumanDevelopment for parents, based on the EFPCurriculum,were organized. “The parents patrol is aprogram that emerged as an initiative to help with the school traffic and to prevent their childrenbeing approached by unknown people at, and outside the school”. Besides that, “empathybetween parents and professors grew since the program was introduced” (Victoria SolisCoronado [interview, May 7, 2014]; Director of Clodio Gonzalez Beltran public school)

We organized a Peace Week in which the children draw a painting that stated: For me, peace is. . . and presented the result to the parents. (Norma Lilia Garza Montemayor [interview, May 7,2014]; Director of the Enedina Garcia public kindergarten)

Some schools created a monthly publication to practice and live by the EFP principles on adaily basis. FORMUS, for example, developed training for parents, in which diverse alter-natives were discussed to put EFP principles in practice both inside and outside the school.

212 N. Lozano Garza

Training in mediation, and workshops on emotional intelligence and peace, were organizedfor the teachers, children, and parents of the Mirasierra private school with astonishing results.

At Nezaldi, the commitment was to make the program involve the society at large and,therefore, they developed conferences for parents, peace festivals, and, among others, alandmark event called Peace Roundtables. The students invited 30 prominent societyleaders from different specialties (arts, sports, political field, academics, entrepreneurs,and philanthropies) and established a dialogue to search for unity and synergetic effortstowards the creation of a culture of peace.10 Through these initiatives, Nezaldi educationalcommunity shared their motto: I sow peace, harvest peace, share peace. They use it in allinstitutional communication, printed or electronic, internal and external. For the nextacademic year the motto will be:

Integrating mind, body and spirit to become the best I can be. The weekly institutionalbulletin sent to all the community includes fragments and reflections from the Manual ofEducation for Peace. (Iliana Ayala de Treviño [interview, May 13, 2014]; Nezaldi School,EFP Coordinator)

It was pointed out by all professors that EFP materials have a comparative advantageversus other programs that do not have its knowledge organized, socialized, and repro-duced for its immediate use and quality assurance.

Figure 3. Nezaldi school children working on peace transversally throughout the curriculum. June2012. San Pedro, Garza García. Photo: Narcedalia Lozano.

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 213

The didactic materials and manuals of EFP are novel and we are very much in need to applythem. The quality of its materials is superior to any other program available. (Statements byVictoria Solis Coronado, Iliana Ayala de Treviño, Ursula Werren de Bolaños, GladysMartínez Ibarra, María Lourdes Valdés Conte, Cyomara Inurrigarro, Norma Lilia GarzaMontemayor, Mirthala Ceniceros Gutierrez, and Cecilia Mendez de la Fuente [interview,May 2014], professors of the schools in which the pre pilot is implemented)

Once every semester, a peace event is organized at each participating EFP school. Inthis, students have the opportunity to present, in a scenario, EFP principles, by takingadvantage of arts – drama, music, dance, painting – and any creative form through whichthe participants demonstrate that the concepts have been interiorized. Usually peaceevents are the schools’ best opportunity to gather parents, politicians, entrepreneurs,researchers, professors, media leaders, and society at large, as well as invite other schoolsto interchange advances, knowledge, and strategies (Figure 4).

We have been invited to various schools’ peace events. In this great opportunity theschool connects with the wider society in an effort to spread education for peaceprinciples to all. Synergy and collaboration is viable after a peace event occurs due tothe openness of the educational community to the larger society. (Hannia Quijano [inter-view, July 7, 2014], Linking Lives representative)

Fortunately, in this effort of introducing EFP, many actors have been active participants notonly at the school level but also outside the school in the wider society. Many families havebeen positively involved in the program and have expressed their perception of the program.

Education for Peace has given to our family the opportunity to redefine our worldview andrecognize ourselves as capable to build peace. It has allowed us to recognize, accept andvalue our differences, promoting unity and togetherness. (Family Treviño Ayala [interview,July 4, 2014] about EFP)

EFP program has reinforced the task of transmitting to our family communication, respect,collaboration, prudence, and unity. Convinced that these are the basis and the only mean to livein peace and harmony together. (Family Larenas Morán [interview, July 4, 2014] about EFP)

Figure 4. Nezaldi school children working on peace transversally throughout the curriculum. April2014. San Pedro, Garza García. Photo: Narcedalia Lozano.

214 N. Lozano Garza

Part 4: findings and discussion

In this section, the qualitative research strategy and findings relating to early outcomes ofEFP in Mexico are described. By revising the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities andthreats, a strategy might emerge for the advancement of EFP to the next level ofimplementation in Mexico.

Understandably, a short-term implementation of EFP within a limited number of schoolsis unlikely to produce drastic changes in the wider functioning of a violence-afflicted societylike Mexico. Through longer-term engagement, however, it is hoped that the combinedefforts of many different actors create peace. This study hypothesizes that by applying asystematic peace-based education program on many fronts, noticeable changes will begin toappear not only at the micro level but also at the meso and macro levels.

SWOT analysis from interviews

To inquire about the EFP pre-pilot program at the 10 schools in Nuevo León, ProfessorAlejandro Huesca from the Unit for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Tec de Monterreycarried out a series of interviews with people responsible for EFP at the schools. Throughthe semi-structured interviews, the following information was obtained to elaborate ananalysis to develop strategic planning and advance the program in Mexico. Its summary ispresented here.

Strengths

School representatives have assessed EFP philosophy, methodology, and suggested prac-tices as applicable to Mexico. All schools reported the transference of knowledge to themembers of the educational communities that could not participate in the initial EFPtraining workshop. The involvement of the whole school (directors, professors, parents,students, janitors, sponsors, and supervisors) was a continuously mentioned asset of theprogram as an integrative inclusive approach. The program is applicable from kindergar-ten to graduate level. It has been able to spark a change in children’s attitudes, with adecrease in bullying and the creation of a healthy environment among kids. The programclearly exposes principles and strategies to put peace into practice and not only as an idealdiscourse. Reflective processes and critical thinking are an essential part of the program,and needed in Mexico. The awakening of civil society and citizenship as “agency”, asdefined by Oxhorn, is occurring, but it still needs advancing in its autonomy andresponsibility for triggering lasting changes.

Opportunities

In all pre-pilot schools, EFP representatives have assessed a prevalent culture of violence asan opportunity for the program to attract attention and resources. This is because the greatestchallenges (insecurity, violence, family disintegration, among others) are seen as the currentstatus quo, and a different reality needs to be created. For the schools, there is a clear urgencyto apply the program to transform the prevalent culture of violence and insecurity. Theywould like the program to be fully approved and integrated within the Secretary of Educationcurriculum. As everybody in the society is affected by violence, they are also willing to bothcollaborate in synergy with others and invest their resources in creating a culture of peace.

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 215

The opportunity to recognize ourselves and acquire the consciousness as coauthors of peacewill be possible by training professors and parents to become responsible of their reality.(María Lourdes Valdés Conte [interview, May 12, 2014]; EFP Coordinator, Mirasierra school)

Another opportunity detected is the creation of a strong, highly committed team oftrained personnel with enough resources to work on the development of EFP, providing aclose follow-up to the schools implementing the program transversally in every class.School professors hope that the Secretary of Education sponsors the EFP curriculumseries to be fully translated, published, and distributed.

Weaknesses

The dominating weakness of the program has been insufficient follow-up. Schools needmore activities and daily planning orientation. They also need every student to have his/her own textbook. There is still insufficient transmission of information and knowledge ofthe good practices among schools. Schools should create more opportunities to share theirefforts and to avoid feeling isolated.

We intend to give more dissemination of EFP inside and outside the educational community.To become a reference for other schools and community efforts is our goal. We havesucceeded without a big budget. We would like to make more connections with otherinstitutions (synergy), to be part of the working process of implementation and multiplyEFP throughout the country. (Iliana Ayala de Treviño [interview, May 13, 2014]; EFPCoordinator, Nezaldi school)

Threats

In many cases, parents are deeply embedded in their own jobs and this could make themremain outsiders to the program, so a threat for the program results is that the schoolexperience does not necessarily connect with the home environment. Professors might bealso busy in other jobs, and yet have to integrate the curriculum in every class, facingcrowded classrooms.

In Nuevo León, even though the Secretary of Education participated in the EFPtraining, he has neither strongly and effectively promoted the program nor investedeconomic resources to implement it in a sustainable way. Therefore, the EFP curriculumtextbook took one year to be completely translated and published in Spanish. Some publicschools expressed a need for day-to-day strategies to be better equipped in order tointroduce the concepts and principles throughout the totality of the academic curriculum.

I expect more resources, more information to generate peaceful solutions, creative forms thatsupport all personal and social efforts that build peace. (María Lourdes Valdés Conte [inter-view, May 12, 2014]; EFP Coordinator, Mirasierra school)

Next steps

For the EFP program to continue its growth process, it is essential to secure the necessaryfinancial resources, to establish a strong team that can offer close and ongoing follow-upfor each and every participating school, and to train an adequate number of Mexicaneducators as EFP trainers, who could actively engage in the systematic introduction ofEFP into Mexican schools.

The first step in this process is to initiate the EFP pilot program, involving at least fourschools (two primary and two secondary) each from several, preferably all, states in

216 N. Lozano Garza

Mexico. In the pilot phase, the full EFP curriculum will be introduced in every classroom,every subject, and every day through the academic year. The specific details of the pilotproject will be developed in collaboration between EFP-International and MexicanSecretaries of Education, Teacher Unions, education scholars and researchers, representa-tives of the civil society engaged in education, and parents. The agreed-upon strategicplanning will address all major issues with regard to training, research, implementation,administration, and financing of the project.

Conclusion

Preliminary findings from the EFP program in Mexico, which began in 2012, confirm thata process of multilateral involvement has begun. Today, the program has become thestepping stone that triggered multilateral efforts at different levels aiming to build aculture of peace. The way the program has been socialized, the response from diverseactors, the forms in which the program has evolved, both influencing and being influencedby the role that different institutions play, along with their interests and practices, arepaving a new path in the history of Mexico. It is an unprecedented concert of many effortsfrom various actors to instigate positive social and policy change.

As a main element of their involvement in the implementation stage, schools andprofessors have been encouraged and assisted to innovate, create, engage, and developthose activities they consider pertinent for an effective peace-based education. All differ-ent actors (within and outside the school) continue contributing, in their own ways, to thesocial construction of peace-based education in both directions. EFP is becoming the beststrategy for crime prevention, as multi-stakeholders at all levels commit to tackle the rootcauses of violence and not only invest resources fighting its symptoms.

In this project, both bottom-up (grassroots) and top-down processes are essential. Thispaper presented the bottom-up dimension of this project at its earliest stage of develop-ment. However, for the program to succeed there is a need for effective, ongoing, andsustained partnership between the Mexican Secretaries of Education, Teacher Unions,regional and national stakeholders in education, CSOs, schools, and universities, alongwith the International Education for Peace Institute (Canada). Ultimately, it is necessarythat the EFP program in Mexico be fully established and be provided with the necessaryfinancial resources and administrative capacities to offer a systematic, well-conceivedprogram for the introduction of EFP to all Mexican school communities and teacher-training faculties. For such a process to be successful, unity of thought, objectives, and anapproach on the part of government, the civil society, the school system, and the parentsare essential.

As documented in this paper, the EFP-Mexico bottom-up approach – in which theschools emerge as laboratories of innovation and creativity, capable of influencing thedecisions of CSOs and local and national NGOs and engage diverse actors within,across, and outside the school and at all levels – has been successful. A dialogueamong diverse actors emerged in both directions, top-down and bottom-up, contribut-ing to the awakening of a citizenship as “agency” – strong, autonomous, and ready topromote multi-stakeholder collaboration among diverse actors – to bring a culture ofpeace to Mexico.

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 217

AcknowledgementsI want to thank Philip Oxhorn, Director of the Institute for the Study of International Development atMcGill University, H.B. Danesh, head of the International Education for Peace Institute, SaraClarke-Habibi from Cambridge University and the Education for Peace international team,Magdalena Shishenkova from Université du Québec à Montréal, Nathalie Gravel from LavalUniversity, Mohamed Sesay and Stephanie Valenzuela from McGill University, Alejandro Huescafrom TEC de Monterrey, and Iliana Ayala from EFP Mexico staff.

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes1. El Norte Newspaper, “Achaca ONU al SNTE desigualdad educativa”, 27 October 2010.2. United Nations Human Development Report 2011, 60. See also Dahlberg (1998); and

Verdú et al. (2008).3. In Nuevo León there are 1,500 gangs, of which 20 are allegedly linked to the Zetas (NAF

Report 2010, 21–22). To refer to Drug Trade Organization (DTO), the word ”narco” will beused thought the paper.

4. Villegas-Reimers 1993; UNICEF Mexico 2005. “La Prevención de la violencia y la reducciónde la deserción escolar en Mexico D.F”, 9 January 2005. http://www.unicef.org/spanish/protection/mexico_30660.html. Accessed 9 October 2009.

5. Milenio Newspaper. Milenio.com. “México es el primer lugar de bullying a escala internacio-nal”. 23 May 2014. http://www.milenio.com/politica/Mexico-primer-bullying-escala-internacional_0_304169593.html. Accessed 21 July 2014.

6. La Jornada Newspaper. “En México padecen violencia 60% de menores de 14 años, revela laCNDH.” April 16, 2012. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/04/16/sociedad/037n2soc.Accessed 21 July 2014.

7. Proceso Newspaper. Proceso.com.mx. “Violencia en las Escuelas”. 3 March 2010. http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=108209. Accessed 21 July 2014.

8. Wilson Center Mexico Institute. “Federal Government investigates deaths of two studentsfrom the Tec de Monterrey”. 21 March 2010. http://mexicoinstitute.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/federal-government-investigates-deaths-of-two-students-from-the-tec-de-monterrey-in-spanish/. Accessed 9 April 2012.

9. Education for Peace Reader, 2011, EFP Press, p. 12. http://efpinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/efp_reader.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2014.

10. Rúbrica Informativa. “Invitan a Trabajar por la Paz”. 9 June 2012. http://rubricainformativa.com/2012/06/09/invitan-a-trabajar-por-la-paz/. Accessed 21 July 2014. 4Poder.info. “Se com-promete Héctor Gutiérrez a ser Constructor de Paz”. 9 June 2012.http://4poder.info/index/2012/06/09/se-compromete-hector-gutierrez-a-ser-constructor-de-paz/. Accessed 21 July 2014.

Notes on contributorNarcedalia Lozano Garza is a Vanier Canada Scholar and a doctoral Political Science student atMcGill University. She is the founder and president of La Paz comienza con los Niños A.C./PeaceBegins with Children Foundation in 2000. Since 2012 she has led the implementation of Educationfor Peace in Mexico. She is a member of CALACS and the Canadian Peace Research Association,and collaborator for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, the Institute for the Study of InternationalDevelopment (ISID), and the International Education for Peace Institute. She is a proud and happymother of three children.

ReferencesBar-On, D. 2010. “Storytelling and Multiple Narratives in Conflict Situations: From the TRT Group

in the German-Jewish Context to the Dual-Narrative Approach of PRIME.” In Handbook onPeace Education, edited by G. Salomon and E. Cairns. New York: Psychology Press.

218 N. Lozano Garza

Cabezudo, A., and M. Haavelsrud. 2007. “Rethinking Peace Education.” In Handbook of Peace andConflict Studies, edited by C. Webel and J. Galtung, 279–296. London: Routledge.

Clarke-Habibi, S. 2005. “Transforming Worldviews: The Case of Education for Peace in Bosnia andHerzegovina.” Journal of Transformative Education 3 (1): 33–56. doi:10.1177/1541344604270238.

Dahlberg, L. 1998. “Youth Violence in the United States: Major Trends, Risk Factors andPrevention Approaches.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 14 (4): 259–272.

Danesh, H. B. 2002. “Education for Peace: Breaking the Cycle of Violence.” Paper presented at theAfrican Civil Society Organization and Development: Re-Evaluation for the 21st century. NewYork: Office of Social and Economic Development, United Nations, 32–39.

Danesh, H. B. 2006. “Towards an Integrative Theory of Peace Education.” Journal of PeaceEducation 3 (1): 55–78. doi:10.1080/17400200500532151

Danesh, H. B. 2007. “Education for Peace: The Pedagogy of Civilization.” In Addressing EthnicConflict Through Peace Education: International Perspectives, edited by Zvi Beckerman andClaire McGlynn. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Danesh, H. B. 2010. “Unity-Based Peace Education: Education for Peace Program in Bosnia andHerzegovina: A Chronological Case Study.” In Handbook on Peace Education, edited by G.Salomon and E. Cairns. New York: Psychology Press.

Danesh, H. B., and S. Clarke-Habibi. 2007. Education for Peace Curriculum: A Manual forTeachers and Students. Neuchatel: EFP-International.

Duffy, T. 2000. “Peace Education in a Divided Society: Creating a Culture of Peace.” NorthernIreland, Prospectus 30: 15–29.

Firer, R. 2002. “The Gordian Knot between Peace Education and War Education.” In The Natureand Study of Peace Education, edited by G. Salomon and B. Nevo, 56–62. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Galtung, J. 1967. “Theories of Peace. A Synthetic Approach to Peace Thinking.” Accessed June 6,2014. http://www.transcend.org/files/Galtung_Book_unpub_Theories_of_Peace_-_A_Synthetic_Approach_to_Peace_Thinking_1967.pdf

Galtung, J. 1974. “On Peace Education.” In Handbook on Peace Education, edited by ChristophWulf, 153–171. Frankfurt: International Peace Research Association (Education Committee).

Galtung, J. 1975. “Schooling and Future Society.” The School Review 83 (4): 553–568. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084556

Galtung, J. 1978. Essay in Peace Research, Volume III: Peace and Social Structure. Copenhagen:Ejlers.

Galtung, J. 2007. “Introduction: Peace by Peaceful Conflict Transformation – The TRANSCENDApproach.” In Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, edited by C. Webel and J. Galtung,279–296. London: Routledge.

García, J. 2014. “Denuncian 2 por hora agresión familiar.” El Norte, July 5. Accessed June 15, 2014.http://www.elnorte.com/aplicaciones/articulo/default.aspx?id=279404š319#ixzz36bDxL2Rg.

Gobierno de México. 2013. “Docentes mexiquenses obtienen certificación de la UNESCO deEducación para la Paz.” June 2. Accessed July 6, 2014. http://portal2.edomex.gob.mx/edomex/noticias/EDOMEX_NOTICIAS_211613.

Haavelsrud, M. 1976a. “The Hidden Connection.” In Mutual Understanding of Peoples andMinority Group Education, edited by Rikio Kimura, 81–95. Sendai: International Associationof Educators for World Peace.

Haavelsrud, M. 1976b. “Principles of Peace Education.” In Education for Peace: Reflection andAction, edited by Magnus Haavelsrud, 250–268. London: IPC Science & Technology Press.

Horowitz, S. 2004–2006. Structural and Cultural Violence: Unskilled Female Work in LatinAmerica, In Comparing Maquiladoras from México and Immigrant Women Workers fromBolivia to Argentina. Bélgica: IPRA

Huerta, P. 2012. “Mexico’s ‘War on Drugs’: A Successful Strategy?” University for Peace. AccessedMay 12, 2014. http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=894

Jarés, X. 1999. Educación para la Paz: Su teoría y su práctica. Madrid: Popular.Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 2010. “Peace Education in the Classroom: Creating Effective

Peace Education Programs.” In Handbook on Peace Education, edited by G. Salomon and E.Cairns. New York: Psychology Press.

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 219

Krosnick, J. A., and R. E. Petty. 1995. “Attitude Strength: An Overview.” In Attitude Strength:Antecedents and Consequences, edited by E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick, 1–24. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lyndsay McLean, H. 2011. “The Role of Education in Driving Conflict and Building Peace: TheCase of Rwanda.” Prospects 41: 267–282.

McCully, A. 2010. “The Contribution of History Teaching to Peace-Building.” In Handbook onPeace Education, edited by G. Salomon and E. Cairns. New York: Psychology Press.

Medios Mexico. 2013. “Demanda Peña Nieto apoyo a la sociedad.” February 13. Accessed July 6,2014. http://mediosenmexico.blogspot.ca/2013/02/demanda-pena-nieto-apoyo-la-sociedad.html.

Mercille, J. 2011. “Violent Narco-Cartels or US Hegemony? The Political Economy of the ‘War onDrugs’ in Mexico.” Third World Quarterly 32 (9): 1637–1653.

Morin, E. 1999. Los sietes saberes necesarios para la educación del futuro. París: UNESCO.NAF Report. 2010. “National Academy Foundation Report 2010–2011.” Accessed April 10, 2012.

http://naf.org/files/page/ 2009/06/naf_annualreport_2010_final.pdfOECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2011. Divided We Stand: Why

Inequality Keeps Rising. http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality-and-poverty.htmOlvera, A. 2004. “Civil Society in Mexico at Century’s End.” In Dilemmas of Political Change in

Mexico, edited by Kevin Middlebrook, 403–439. London: Institute of Latin American Studies.Orjuela, C. 2003. “Building Peace in Sri Lanka: A Role for Civil Society?” Journal of Peace

Research 40 (2): 195–212. doi:10.1177/0022343303040002004.Oxhorn, P. 2011. Sustaining Civil Society: Economic Change, Democracy, and the Social

Construction of Citizenship in Latin America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.

Paolini, S., M. Hewstone, E. Cairns, and A. Voci. 2004. “Effects of Direct and Indirect Cross-GroupFriendships on Judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The Mediating Roleof an Anxiety-Reduction Mechanism.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (6):770–786.

Przeworski, A. 1986. “Some Problems in the Study of the Transition to Democracy.” In Transitionsfrom Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspective, edited by G. O’Donnell, P. C. Schmitter,and L. Whitehead, 47–63. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Przeworski, A. 1995. Sustainable Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ross, M. H. 2010. “Peace Education and Political Science.” In Handbook on Peace Education,

edited by G. Salomon and E. Cairns, 121–133. New York: Psychology Press.Russell, B. 1988. Education and Social Order. Londres: Unwin Brothers.Salomon, G. 2002. “The Nature of Peace Education: Not All Programs are Created Equall.” In The

Nature and Study of Peace Education, edited by G. Salomon and B. Nevo, 3–15. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Salomon, G. 2004. “Does Peace Education Make a Difference?” Peace and Conflict: Journal ofPeace Psychology 10: 257–274.

Salomon, G., and E. Cairns, eds. 2010a. “Open-Ended Questions.” In Handbook on PeaceEducation, 315–324. New York: Psychology Press.

Salomon, G., and E. Cairns. 2010b. “Peace Education: Setting the Scene.” In Handbook on PeaceEducation, edited by G. Salomon and E. Cairns, 1–9. New York: Psychology Press.

Schedler, A. 2000. “The Democratic Revelation.” Journal of Democracy 11 (4): 5–19. AccessedJune 5, 2014. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v011/11.4scheler.pdf.

Santibañez, L., G. Vernez, and P. Razquin. 2005. “Education in Mexico, Challenges andOpportunities.” Rand Education Coorporation. Accessed May 7, 2014. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2005/RAND_DB480.sum.pdf

Schimmel, N. 2009. “Towards A Sustainable and Holistic Model of Peace Education: A Critique ofConventional Modes of Peace Education through Dialogue in Israel.” Journal of PeaceEducation 6 (1): 51–68. doi:10.1080/17400200802658365.

Spaulding, S. 1998. “An Assessment of Educational Renewal and Reform in Bosnia andHerzegovina.” Accessed June 16 2014. http://www.pitt.edu/~ginie/bosnia/pdf/AsseBiH98.pdf.

Staub, E., L. A. Pearlmall, and R. Bilali. 2010. “Understanding the Roots and Impact of Violenceand Psychological Recovery as Avenues to Reconciliation after Mass Violence and IntractableConflict.” In Handbook on Peace Education, edited by G. Salomon and E. Cairns, 269–286.New York: Psychology Press.

220 N. Lozano Garza

UN. “Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace.” Resolutions A/RES/52/13:Culture of Peace and A/RES/53/243. Accessed May 1, 2014. http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/2000.htm.

UNESCO. 1945. “UNESCO Constitution.” Accessed May 1, 2014. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15244&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

United Nations Development Program. 2010. “The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to HumanDevelopment.” United Nations Human Development Report. Accessed May 12, 2014. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/270/hdr_2010_en_complete_reprint.pdf

UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 2013. “The Rise of the South: Human Progress in aDiverse World.” United Nations Human Development Report. Accessed May 7, 2014. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2013-report

United Nations Human Development Report. 2011. “Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future forAll.” United Nations development Program. Accessed May 12, 2014. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/271/hdr_2011_en_complete.pdf

Verdú, R. G., W. Cunningham, L. McGinnis, C. Tesliuc, and D. Verner, 2008. Youth at Risk in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean: Understanding the Causes, Realizing the Potential. Washington,DC: World Bank.

Villegas-Reimers, E. 1993. Can Schools Teach Democratic Values? Washington, DC: U.S. Agencyfor International Development; Villegas-Reimers Civic Education and the School Systems ofLatin America and the Caribbean (Washington D.C.) U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

Whyte, J. 1991. Interpreting Northern Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 221